Originally Posted by
Leto
I don't believe anyone has "mastered" 900 forms. I don't like that the history and origins of the forms we do know are obscured. I don't even like the way a lot of the material is initially taught. But there is something there, wherever it came from. It's not worth bothering about if you've got your own teacher and your own so-called "legitimate" style to practice. But for people who have already invested time and effort into this, and possibly don't have any other options for training besides generic karate or tae kwon do...it is important. We know that there is something useful here...and I don't think anyone who knows about Chinese history, martial arts, and the Shaolin temple actually believes that Sin The is the master inheritor of every style of kung fu ever to come from Shaolin.
If it's just a mix-match personal style invented by Sin The, or his teacher, or whoever, so be it. But it is a "real" style, that has some good techniques and forms. Someone who trains the right way, and has developed insight, will have just as good "kung fu" as someone who trains in any "authentic" style, with masters from Hong Kong or Taiwan or Shanghai.
I am disappointed that the style's history has been based on tall tales, and disappointed that the long time teachers perpetuate the mythology as truth. I want to know where it all really came from, and what traditions/lineages to look at as "ancestors" of the style. But I know that such answers are not coming from anyone who really knows anytime soon. Should I just stop practicing, and forget all the things I know? I could just go back to my Okinawan karate style exclusively, which has a traceable lineage back to the 18th century (that means it must be better, right?). But I tell you, what I learned at the CSC was valuable. Whether it's really "shaolin" or not...I don't care. It doesn't mean I won't accept other avenues of training, but I will not forget or discard the things I have learned. Whether what I was taught as "hsing i" is really hsing i...I don't care. Maybe it's not as "effective" as "real" hsing i...I know it teaches a method of power generation for short range attacks which is quite effective. It probably is different than what the shanxi and heibei lineages call hsing i. Oh well.
I was taught two very common tai chi forms, but maybe the way they are practiced is not common. Doing straight punches from a horse stance is also a common method, however almost everyone has some variation and their own preference for what is "right". One teacher says the chamber must be as high as it can go...another says the chamber should be near the hip, or the ribs, or wherever. One teacher says vertical punches are more effective than horizontal punches, another says horizontal has more power, and a third says it doesn't matter. One says the knees must be out, another says the knees must be in. One says you squeeze the ground with your toes, another says you must be totally relaxed. Balance near the balls of the feet, or balance near the heels, or on the blade. One says the torso should not move perceivably, another says you should twist as you punch , or sink, or whatever. The only thing which is the same is the actual act of punching. Every one says their way is the "right" way, and those other guys are wrong and aren't as good as we are.
How is this different than what is happening here with SD?
If you put aside all the lineages, the folklore, the coutries of origin, the politics and pride, and just look at what's actually there...what basis does anyone have for saying one way is wrong and the other way is right? It's subjective and personal. You can't judge effectiveness in fighting unless you constantly fight with people. Aesthetics of performance is subjective according to your tastes. You may be able to see whether someone's spine is straight, and posture correct to allow correct qi flow, but you can't (usually) see their mentality, what they are visualizing, or whether their mindset is "correct".